According to Polcinand Henderson, organizations like the YMCA, YWCA, and Salvation Army helped tolaunch SLH in the 1830s. Contrary to today, these houses were typically run byreligious organizations that had strong beliefs about sobriety, and residentswere frequently obligated to attend church services. According to the NationalLibrary of Medicine, SLH began in the 1830s, when they were governed bycharitable organizations like the YMCA and the Salvation Army. People referredto them as dry hotels or guesthouses because they were associated with thetemperance movement, a social movement opposed to the drinking of alcoholicbeverages.
Residents of the SLHwere frequently compelled to attend church services and were not permitted tocontribute at this point in their history.
Sober living homes(SLHs) are drug- and alcohol-free living spaces that provide social support topeople trying to give up drugs and alcohol. They employ a peer-oriented, socialmodel strategy that prioritizes support for one another, financialindependence, and resident participation in decision-making and facilitymanagement. They are an underutilized recovery resource despite being asignificant response to the growing demand for more services that supportlong-term sobriety from drugs and alcohol.
This study traces thedevelopment of sober living homes in California from the early AA influences inthe 1930s to the founding of current SLH associations, like the Sober LivingNetwork in Southern California. The report discusses significant occurrencesand laws that affected SLHs. More research is required to inform improvementsin structure and operations, even if early research on the results of SLHresidents has been highly encouraging. The consequences of the expansion ofrecovery programs and community housing policies are discussed in the paper'sconclusion.
It has long beenunderstood that certain people need a drug- and alcohol-free home environmentto recover from alcohol and drug addiction. Even for people who are very drivento recover, exposure to alcohol, drugs, relapse triggers, and friends andfamily who support substance use might cause it to fail. Treatment programshave made services available in residential settings where people can livewhile receiving treatment because they recognize that some people with alcoholand drug problems lack a living environment conducive to recovery. Since the1960s, a wide range of residential options have appeared, each with itsduration of stay, milieu organization, staffing, and rehabilitation philosophy.
Examples includesocial model programs, therapeutic communities, and Minnesota Model programs(Anderson, McGovern, & DuPont, 1999). (Borkman, Kaskutas, Room, Bryan,& Barrows, 1999). All of these approaches include official servicesprovided by paid personnel, like case management, individual counseling, andrecovery groups. While some recovering residents are likely to be involved withthese services off-site and the majority have a history of receiving formalservices, this paper focuses on the development of a unique recovery optionthat does not include formal services or paid staff on-site at the sober livingresidence.
Free-standing soberliving homes or sober housing are what these residences are known as (Polcin& Borkman, 2008). "Free standing" in this context refers to thefact that the homes comply with local zoning and building safety regulationsfor residential occupancy while also not being licensed by any government agency,offering no licensed professional services on-site. Based on the history andland-use patterns of the city or county, these homes are typical housing thatcan be found across the neighborhood. Architecturally, they could berefurbished duplexes, tiny apartment complexes, or substantial single-familyhomes.
The history of soberhousing in California from 1935 to the present is covered in this article. Westart by giving an overview of 12-step housing, which was born out of therecovery tenets and experiences of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). The 12-step houseis the first free-standing sober housing facility developed, independentlyowned, and run by people in recovery with the primary objective of promotingday-to-day sober living. For various distinct types of sober housing that havedeveloped over the last fifty years, including sober houses in California, theinitial design concepts and operational procedures laid a foundation that isstill in use today.
The following fourincidents in the evolution of California's policy to address alcohol anddrug-related health and safety issues at the local and state levels are thenexamined in the paper, along with their connections to sober housing:
The dissolution ofCalifornia's system of incarcerating alcoholics in state mental hospitals andneighborhood jails (the 1950s and 1960s).
The custodial caresystem was replaced with short-term treatments for drug/alcohol addiction inlocations under the supervision of professionals, with little focus on housing.A community-based social model approach to recovery was born out of thenecessity for housing and longer-term services.
Impact of publichousing and urban redevelopment practices that excluded alcoholics and addictsfrom housing and destroyed their habitat but finally also gave recoveringindividuals' housing rights crucial safeguards (the 1960s to 1992).
Between 1980 and 2010,there was a reduction in federal and state funding for residential treatmentfacilities and housing for people with AOD issues. At the same time, the numberof state prisons in California increased.
The prospects forsober housing's current rise in California are covered in the paper'sconclusion. We examine the current state of sober housing associations, thepotential role that sober houses might play in responding to the court-mandatedrelease of a significant number of people incarcerated in California StatePrisons, and the development of "intentional housing" models thatmight help people with problems other than drug and alcohol addiction.
All things considered,the 1970s and beyond ought to have been a thrilling decade for the growth ofsober housing. Numerous federal laws and policies were supportive of soberliving homes, and social model rehabilitation had grown in popularity. For instance,The Fair Housing Act of 1968 forbade discrimination against tenants bydesignating a "protected class" of tenants based on citizenship, age,sex, pregnancy, race, color, and religion.
The Fair Housing ActAmendments of 1988 expanded these safeguards to cover individuals living insober housing who share a household and those who are disabled as a result ofalcoholism (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). According to nominaldefinitions of "family" and the inclusion of alcoholism as a handicap,initiatives for urban reconstruction and public housing included people inrecovery who lived in a committed sober setting.